For all those waiting for the Pathfinder 2e sheet, the first generation is now live! There are some known issues and pending additional functionality, and any bug reports should be made here.

November is coming, and with it comes 'National Novel Writing Month', or NaNoWriMo. For those who don't know, this is an annual personal challenge to write a short novel of 50,000 words or more in one month. Sign up may be found here: NaNoWriMo Sign Up

If you sign up or have already signed up, you can go to the following link and give your name as registered on the NaNoWriMo site to have your tracking widget added in the thread. Weavers have been participating in the challenge since 2012, both helping brainstorm with each other as well as providing support and encouragement where needed. Check it out if you've always wanted to push your creative writing skills!
MW NaNoWriMo 2018

On December 15th we will begin the Myth Weavers Storycrafting Contest, which will have some great prizes! Writers will have two months to write a short story about a fantasy-setting minor holiday that has been selected by staff. Full details will be announced on the start date, but we will reveal part of the grand prize: a Farland campaign setting! Check here for current info on the contest!

"I know not with what weapons World War III may be fought, but World War IV will surely be fought with sticks and stones."
~ rough paraphrase of Einstein

Einstein was a smart guy, but I don't think that even he can tell the future. I'm with Solaris, World War 3, if it happens, will likely not decimate the broader population (or if it does, will result in total annihilation), and will likely lead to a post-war childbirth boom. A species grows to fit its available resources, so as long as there are excess resources, population will grow. As resources become more scarce, population growth with naturally curb itself. If we kill off a bunch of people (through whatever means), the population will simply grow back to fill the void. More important to me is finding a way to expand resources available so that population pressure doesn't lead to resource shortages.

You're not going to get a nuclear exchange between powers. You're going to get fanatics without taxpayers setting off nukes. Thus the Cold War was very likely not to be anything more than a limited exchange, a mutual decapitation, whereas this current brushfire is actually much more likely to turn unpleasant.

I see it going more in the way of precision weapons rather than nuclear exchanges. When a small force can launch 100 rockets in a day and hit 100 stationary targets thanks to cheap GPS guidance. I'm sure there is counters, etc but the days of only superpowers having smart weapons are going to be increasingly behind us.

GPS doesn't work above a certain height which you're pretty much required to get to if you're working with anything that would require GPS precisely for that reason, so you can't use GPS to guide missiles.

GPS doesn't work above a certain height which you're pretty much required to get to if you're working with anything that would require GPS precisely for that reason, so you can't use GPS to guide missiles.

No, but GPS works at the altitudes you find anything at, and there are many other methods of navigation to get a missile in the ballpark of where it wants to be besides just GPS. Compasses, for example, or inertial navigation.

Terrorists might get ahold of one or two nukes, and given what I have heard of their capabilities, are more likely to set them off in their own backyard then successfully smuggle them overseas. Keep in mind every successfull terrorist plot used local resources, and while they might get a small nuke, it won't be in the US. Which means WW3 is at worst going to result in a post war baby boom and require some cleanup of fallout in the middle east.

We're not overpopulated at the moment and there's enough food to go round - it's just a case of distribution. There are far more obese people than starving ones for example.

Birth rates in industrial nations have gone down as infant mortality dropped and various things (most notably the Pill) have come in.

I've just explained that the problem isn't food, so your late to the punch.

Quote:

As resources become more scarce, population growth with naturally curb itself.

I don't see where the natural curb could be stemming from though, except magical 'do the math' numbers.

Don't just rely on math without first having a perfect model - and a very accurate model will be needed! Possibly more accurate than any that has been ever drawn up by any small group of statiscians that make most of their money from tabloids - and I don't trust government sponsored groups (statistics canada, ie., doesn't tell me that everyone in canada is working on a mathematical model; in fact, they have many projects).

Quote:

Originally Posted by silveroak

Terrorists might get ahold of one or two nukes, and given what I have heard of their capabilities, are more likely to set them off in their own backyard then successfully smuggle them overseas. Keep in mind every successfull terrorist plot used local resources, and while they might get a small nuke, it won't be in the US. Which means WW3 is at worst going to result in a post war baby boom and require some cleanup of fallout in the middle east.

So, is this a war preparation thread now? :P

Can't we at least continue playing devil's advocate, first?

Quote:

and require some cleanup of fallout in the middle east.

If cleaning up fall out is even a possible thing that can be done, but lets not deviate. -_-

Quote:

More important to me is finding a way to expand resources available so that population pressure doesn't lead to resource shortages.

Private industry has that mostly under control (so long as the competition exists). The concern most people have is over alternate fuel sources and how to get them exploited.

Oh, and if we have resource excess and a slowing population, won't that mean that we can devote it to higher pursuits? Build more roads? Wider cities? Lanes with higher speed limits? The benefits of an urban sprawl are limitless, so long as they don't clutter up (more parks for the naturalists too).

I just don't see the purpose of seeing our population grow anymore than it already has in terms of benefitting anyone who is already alive.

It's all population really. It's what makes democracy difficult, it pisses off environmentalists, and it creates broader class distinction because jobs become less definable (your now only a small piece of a broader company which looks after a very simple product). If we could pursue new ways to stay alive or choose to live... ?